Reflections on Malachi 1:1-5

1 A prophecy: The word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi.2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob,3but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord.5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

The minor prophets of the Old Testament have been damned with faint praise. “Oh what servants! What timeless truths! Right? Now, everyone, please turn in your Bibles over to Romans…” I’ve been enjoying Malachi of late, and I thought I’d share a bit.

A word of warning, before we begin: all I’m using is biblegateway.com. That’s it. I utilize that site due to the ease of accessing multiple translations. I trend towards NASB and HCSB. My wife prefers NCV. I spent some time in KJV just to get some perspective. All my commentaries are boxed up somewhere so I’m stuck with just variations in Bible translations. Spot any mistakes? Point them out. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

The Lord starts off with a bang, announcing both the existence of His feelings as well as their character: love. He loves. Even if we were to assume the divine amore takes on a form unique from our own, we still possess a feeling, personal God. Gone is the Life Force or a vague “something greater” to which we might belong.

The people of Israel cannot see it, though. They ask, “Love? What love?” A more thorough examination of Malachi’s cultural and political milieu might reveal strife and turmoil that may have inspired the Israelites to question God’s love. Their myopic view does not allow them to grasp a larger picture. God moves quickly to display His proof via a well-known historical perspective. History, my dear Americans, is useful.

“Did I not choose you, the house of Jacob, over that of his equally sinful brother, Esau? Could I not easily have gone in a different direction and left Jacob’s line to starve and stagger through the famine that plagued the region in later decades? Haven’t I left you a country, a place of your own that actually thrives sometimes? And Esau – he’s got rocks and wild dogs.”

There’s something hidden in here – the sovereignty of God. He chooses, and His choice is final. Calvinists, consider your position on election pretty well confirmed. God does choose, and apparently His choices help determine the difference between the goats and and sheep, the hoi polloi and the spiritual elites.

But wait – what of Esau? What response do his people give? “Sure, the Almighty has destroyed, but we’ll overcome even that.” They could have gone over over the river to the west, to their cousins’ place. Ruth the Moabite (Moabitess?) showed the world that much. Historically speaking, people groups moved and merged and split and melded back then. Joining the Jews remained an option, but Esau’s people never took that route. They made their choice, one of rebellion, one that said God’s destructive acts would be ignored. Arminians, here is the language of choice in matters of salvation to buttress your assertions.

And God closes His proof of His love, contrasted with His rejection of Edom, by reminding the nation of something they could never remember: He was King of the world, and the world would know Him. Too often, Israel fell into the assumption that He was their chosen God, and His power and favor fell on them to the exclusion of all else. Their misunderstood emphasis aside, God’s choice of Jacob’s family by no means implied His lordship limited itself to the Israeli people and their land. No, God reigned supreme over all the world, and the world needed to know. Evangelism and missions existed even in Malachi’s time.

One has to wonder – as we consider love, sovereignty, His choices, our choices, and a world that did not know Him – was Malachi pointing towards Christ? God so loved that He chose to send His Son, a Son that we can choose even has He chooses us, no? His name will be great among the nations, right?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Well, consider how God treated Esau. That fellow could have said, “With an enemy like God, who needs any friends?” He is the one man I know of for sure who got more than enough. He said, Gen.33:9, “I have enough, my brother;….” Jacob then proceeded to urge Esau to take the gift (a drove of livestock, actually a drove divided into droves of each kind of the animals included, some 530 animals, I think) that he, Jacob, was offering to him, and the Bible says, Gen.33:11, “…he took it.” The one man who had more than enough, according to his own word. There is more that could be said. Paul cited the love and hate verse in Roms.9, and I used it for a three point sermon in evangelism: We are invited to receive God who does not think like we do, love like we do, or hate like we do. I peached it in one revival and had 10 professions of faith.

Ethan…Thanks for the quick look at this opening foundation into Malachi.

God is matter of fact, isn’t He. His love should not be questioned, but it is over, and over, and over again. This prophecy is a comforting indication of how God is “Great, even over the borders of Israel.” I like the translation “over”, since it confirms (possibly better explains) how God is unwavering to his promise, …using borders as an illustration.

Doug,..just saw this. For anyone, especially followers of the the promise that is so acutely described in Malachi. The fact that the messiah “will”, not “might” come out of Israel is evidence that the love of God can be trusted 100%. Fast forward and is echoed by the Hebrew writers proclamation that “at the right time”. In other words, God’s love is always specific, on time, and should never be questioned.

August 30, 2014 11:37 am

doug sayers

Should Esau have believed that God loved him?

August 30, 2014 1:28 pm

parsonsmike

Doug,

Did Esau trust God?
We all stumble as His children in trusting Him, but the overall thrust of our lives is trusting in Him.
Was the overall thrust of Esau’s life to trust God?
No.
And neither did Esau believe the truth of God or he would have never declared that though God tear it down, he, Esau, would build it up again.

Esau had the wrong idea of God. He was a idol worshipper.

Now you and I deserve eternal death, not only for the sins we committed, but also for the sins we are still doing today, and will do tomorrow. But we are no longer under condemnation and God no longer holds our sins against us. This is because of the love He has for us, that He demonstrated to us personally, not only at our conversion but also every time He forgives us.

And because we see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, we know that He loves us and thus always will.

One way to see the love of God is in what He did for us: did He deliver us from the dominion of Satan and translate us into the Kingdom of His dear Son, if so, He loves us.

But for those who have died, who were never so translated, how can we say that God loved them? He let them die and go to Hell, while we, who deserve the same, He rescued and saved.

Doug, I would try to answer your question in the same way that Jesus address the Lawyer that put him to the test……

“Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.”

the example…..

“And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

“But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”

“Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
(NASB)

So,…the Lawyer is like Esau. Jesus would command him to love unequivocally.

I may be missing your point or question altogether….?? but, lets keep it going.

August 30, 2014 2:11 pm

parsonsmike

Chris,
Two things.
One. The words,
“Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.”
were privately spoken to the disciples, not the crowd.

The second. This is what was recorded before that:

~~~At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” ~~~

To some they are things hidden, to others they are revealed. And to the disciples, Jesus told them they were blessed. Why? Because the things hidden to many are revealed to them.

And then the lawyer puts Jesus to the test.
Consider who this is, a Jewish lawyer, who lives under the Law, and who more than likely finds his righteousness through obedience to the law.
And when Jesus tells him he is right about the Law being summed up in love God with all and neighbor as yourself, the lawyer, SEEKING TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF, asks Jesus who his neighbor is.

Now Jesus reply strikes at the heart of a major Jewish spiritual problem: that they alone are God’s people and that they cane free to hate others, especially Samaritans.
Jesus says, Go and do likewise.
Now can a person who seeks to justify themselves be justified by keeping the entire Law?
Well, trick question for they can not keep the law. They can not love their neighbor as themselves. Maybe once. maybe a few times,maybe a lot. But EVERY TIME? Nope.
Yet it is the Law and it is true that God is true to it. We read in Romans 2:

~~~But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.~~~

But that perseverance must be perfect. That doing good must be always.

Therefore there is a catch. Jesus is the rock of offense, the stumbling stone. The words, “Go and do likewise,” should be met with the realization that I can not do likewise always so please help me God. That would be grace talking. Pride talking is when, after looking into the perfect mirror of liberty, they go away forgetting what kind of sinner they really are.

Yes.. we should recognize, and always are humbled by the grace and mercy of the living God.

August 30, 2014 4:34 pm

parsonsmike

Doug,
Think of it like this…
Everyone, although some are in denial [atheists], thinks there is a god and they order their lives around what kind of god or gods they believe in.
But only those to whom the One True God reveals Himself to actually know who God is, the rest worship idols who are not God, no matter what they call their idol[s].

It is these alone who have any chance to walk in obedience to Him.
You can’t walk in obedience to the One True God while you worship idols.

Neither can you know that this One True God loves you if you are worshipping idols.

So who can question His love?
His children.
But they should not question His love.

What did Esau do wrong, before he was born, to deserve being born with no hope of being loved by God? Or, did God foresee that Esau would be an idol worshiper and decree that he would be born with no hope of being saved. Neither??

August 30, 2014 10:50 pm

Adam G. in NC

Well, the Bible says “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” so he didnt “do” anything wrong before he was born. And, it also says “not by works but by him who calls” so it doesnt seem to speak to good or bad works that they would do in the future either.

August 30, 2014 11:06 pm

parsonsmike

God is just. He wouldn’t condemn Esau unless Esau violated the Law.
The idea that “not by works” implies ~good~ works. for no one is considered one of the children of God because they do evil works.

August 30, 2014 11:53 pm

Tarheel

Doug,

Do you believe God knows and has known who will and will not come to faith in Christ?

Tarheel, I think so based on the texts about the book of life but I’m no expert on God’s omniscience/foreknowledge. (You’re probably not surprised!) If our soteriology is based upon our understanding of God’s omniscience, and how He chooses to use it, then we are on some thin philosophical ice.

The point I would want to make here is that the Reformed/Calvinistic view sentences Esau (and all those presumed to be born reprobate) in hell based on a sin they did not commit, sins they could not possibly prevent, and sins they could not even confess properly. This reflects poorly on the integrity and justice of God. A sovereign god might put someone in eternal hell because of what Adam did…. but a righteous sovereign God would not.

Note: M Henry, on Romans 5, where he insists that those born with handicaps and diseases must be born guilty and G Whitefield’s statement, in Method of Grace, that God would be just to damn someone to hell even if they never actually committed one sin in their entire life! That is real Calvinism. The rest are RINOS (Reformed In Name Only) If you are going to be a consistent Calvinist you must be prepared to put some dying infants in hell. I am glad that Spurgeon, Piper, and MacAurthur believe dying babies go to heaven but it is a “felicitous inconsistency.” (I suspect Les could confirm this from WCF.)

Mike is right, we can’t be born guilty because sin is not imputed where there is no law. (Rom 4:15; 5:13) The Reformed view, and (Edwards theory, in Les’s comment below) ascribes injustice to God by imputing guilt where no law was actually broken. If Calvinists are wrong about the imputation of Adam’s guilt to posterity then their ship hits the iceberg… the whole system sinks.

It is one thing to be born in sin. It is another to be born dead in sin.

Sorry so long. Hope you’ll give it some thought.

August 31, 2014 9:39 pm

Tarheel

Brother Doug,

A common objection to reformed theology is one you just gave. – about the integrity and justice of God.

“The point I would want to make here is that the Reformed/Calvinistic view sentences Esau (and all those presumed to be born reprobate) in hell based on a sin they did not commit, sins they could not possibly prevent, and sins they could not even confess properly. This reflects poorly on the integrity and justice of God. A sovereign god might put someone in eternal hell because of what Adam did…. but a righteous sovereign God would not.”

However, the non cals I know (and most who post here) affirm that God knows and has known from eternity past who will be saved – and further that His knowledge is infalliable – so I ask – what’s the practical difference in what your saying and what reformed theology says? Either way “people are created and live – some of whom will repent and recieve eternal life – and some who will not and go to hell” – God knowing these results full well – still creates both groups of individuals.

So again, what’s the practical difference (I hate this phrase) at the end of the day?

It seems to me that we gotta accept foreknowledge and predestination is some form or another or we are denying the sin text of scripture – both doctrines are strongly taught – many of us disagree on the minutiae of the specifics though.

“Note: M Henry, on Romans 5, where he insists that those born with handicaps and diseases must be born guilty…”

Here is the context on M Henry on that:

“Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the world before the law; witness Cain’s murder, the apostasy of the old world, the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God: therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, Rom. 5:14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did—which is to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet died, because Adam’s sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom, which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not chargeable with guilt.”

This is pretty pedestrian original guilt stuff here by Henry. And he is right on target.

Notice in the passage by Henry, he deals with this notion that you and others bring up where you try to insist that there can be no sin imputed where there is no law. Henry rightly points out that there ALWAYS has been law…God’s law.

“The point I would want to make here is that the Reformed/Calvinistic view sentences Esau (and all those presumed to be born reprobate) in hell based on a sin they did not commit, sins they could not possibly prevent, and sins they could not even confess properly. This reflects poorly on the integrity and justice of God. A sovereign god might put someone in eternal hell because of what Adam did…. but a righteous sovereign God would not.”

Now it is true that all are born guilty. But you misunderstand when you say Esau is sentenced to hell based on a sin he didn’t commit. Not only Adam’s sin, but his own. Esau and all other non elect find themselves in hell due to their own sin and Adam’s sin.

An infant, on the other hand, though also guilty and justly deserving hell even though he has committed no actual sin, that infant would be justified on the basis of the work or Christ should he die in infancy and miss hell thus proving his election. If he lives, and is also non elect, his own sins add to his original sin and guilt and hell awaits him.

A sovereign God (note I capitalized that G you missed) would put someone in hell for Adam’s sin and the individual’s sin. He’s born guilty. A sovereign God would NOT put someone in hell based only on Adam’s sin (see on infants above) though He’d be just if he did. But he doesn’t.

“G Whitefield’s statement, in Method of Grace, that God would be just to damn someone to hell even if they never actually committed one sin in their entire life! That is real Calvinism.”

True.

“The rest are RINOS (Reformed In Name Only)” not.

” If you are going to be a consistent Calvinist you must be prepared to put some dying infants in hell.” Nope. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated (monergism) and are immediately in the presence of Jesus.

“I am glad that Spurgeon, Piper, and MacAurthur believe dying babies go to heaven but it is a “felicitous inconsistency.” (I suspect Les could confirm this from WCF.)”

Most Reformed folk believe babies dying do go to be with Jesus. And God’s truth always gives “pleasure or contentment to the mind or senses.” In this case a felicitous consistency.

Perhaps this is where those of us among the Reformed and those not, have the biggest hurdle or chasm between us theologically. The issue is what is man’s condition post fall? In this post, Edwards says,

“When man sinned, and broke God’s covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart: for indeed God then left him; that communion with God, on which these principles depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house. Because it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the covenant and constitution God had established, that God should still maintain communion with man, and continue, by his friendly, gracious vital influences, to dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God’s wrath and curse. Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly ceased; so light ceases in a room, when the candle is withdrawn: and thus man was left in a state of darkness, woeful corruption and ruin; nothing but flesh, without spirit.”

This is what happened to Esau and why he was hated. i.e. Esau was not loved before the foundation of the world salvifically.

In the grand picture, there are the elect known and chosen from the foundation of the world and there are the non elect. Contra some non Reformed, one’s election doesn’t happen when one believes. It happened long ago and shows in due time…God’s due time.

You can’t be held guilty for breaking a law before you existed. Scripture does not teach this. We are born in sin as the consequence of Adam’s sin and God’s curse on the race. Nobody is born guilty. That is biblically and rationally indefensible.

We become dead in sin when God imputes the guilt of our own sin to our own account. Like Adam in the Garden and Paul in Rom 7:9.

I will need very explicit textual proof before I could teach that Esau broke the law that was given to Adam before Esau existed. Inferences won’t do the job at such a critical point.

Anybody with me?

September 1, 2014 9:03 pm

parsonsmike

Doug,
I am a 5 pointer.
I agree with you.
Physical death is a consequence of the fall, not a punishment.
We know this is true because Christians, for whom Jesus took the full wrath of God upon Himself at the cross, still die physically.

God did not hate Esau because the boy had sin on his soul. Think of the idea of hate as in the lack of everlasting love. Jacob and Esau represent two types of people: those God saves and those he doesn’t.
Or we could call those two types: the children of promise and the the others. We could call those two types those who do not get what they deserve and those that perish in their sins.

So although Esau in the womb was not guilty of anything, he would live to sin and bring condemnation down upon himself. And he would die in his sins.
Likewise, Jacob in the womb was not guilty of anything, but he would live and sin and bring condemnation down upon himself, just like Esau did, BUT God had mercy on Jacob so that he would not die in his sins.

“In the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6) we read:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

B. B. Warfield, commenting on this section of the Confession, writes:
It must be observed, however, that the teachings and prescriptions of Scripture are not confined by the Confession to what is ‘expressly set down in Scripture.’ Men are required to believe and obey not only what is ‘expressly set down in Scripture.’ but also what ‘by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.’ This is the strenuous and universal contention of the Reformed theology against the Socinians and Arminians, who desired to confine the authority of Scripture to its literal asservations; and it involves a characteristic honoring of reason as the instrument for the ascertainment of truth. We must depend upon our human faculties to ascertain what Scripture says; we cannot suddenly abnegate them and refuse their guidance in determining what Scripture means. This is not, of course, to make reason the ground of the authority of inferred doctrines and duties. Reason is the instrument of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether ‘expressly set down in Scripture’ or ‘by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture’: but their authority, when once discovered, is derived from God, who reveals them and prescribes them in Scripture, either by literal assertion or by necessary implication.

It is the Reformed contention, reflected here by the Confession, that the sense of Scripture is Scripture, and that men are bound by its whole sense in all its implications. The re-emurgence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system impossible, but would logically involve the denial of the authority of all doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever simplicitly can be ascertained from Scripture except by the process of the understanding. It is, therefore, an unimportant incident that the recent plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly of a doctrine which is explicitly, in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic.”

September 2, 2014 9:52 am

Chris Griffin

Doug Sayers,

“If you are going to be a consistent Calvinist you must be prepared to put some dying infants in hell.”

I do not believe that infants go to hell. However, what is your strong, explicit Scriptural support that infants do not go to hell? I have a couple of passages I would go to, but I don’t think Scripture is as clear as it could be on this.

“It is one thing to be born in sin. It is another to be born dead in sin.”

Please, explain the difference between “born in sin” and “born dead in sin.”

Doug, I was using my phone earlier when I replied this morning. Let me just say this: if you and I cannot agree that “[t]he whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then our discussion is over before really getting started.

Blessings to you brother.

September 2, 2014 11:42 am

John Wylie

The thing that people miss when dealing with this passage and other places where it’s applied like Romans 9 is that God is speaking of nations more than individuals. Esau is representative of Edom while Jacob represents Israel. God is speaking of his election of Israel over Edom.

Genesis 25:23 “And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”

John, I think you are correct here as opposed to Spurgeon (I’m a fan of a lot of his work) as he has missed the intent of the writer of Malachi portraying the prophecy as too specific. God is simply making a statement that his promise of Christ, out of , “over Israel”, is intact and cannot be thwarted. In other words, His love is a perfect love. This is less about people and more about Jesus Christ.

Now when we get to Paul’s use of this specific inference to Israel, he does apply the teaching more specific to those in Rome.

August 30, 2014 2:22 pm

parsonsmike

John,
Two manner of people.
One saved by God.
The other not.

August 30, 2014 2:11 pm

John Wylie

so are you saying that edomites could not be saved?

August 30, 2014 2:15 pm

parsonsmike

Esau and Jacob represent two type of peoples or two different nations. One represents the people of God, the nation of God. The other represents the people that follow the prince of the world, the nation and nations aligned against God.

In the New T., the people of God are called Christians, and represent Jacob the nation of Israel, whom God loves. Esau and Edom are represented by those who hate God and who deny the power and place of God.

As witnesses for Jesus, our job is to proclaim the Gospel to all people, both the condemnation of sin and the salvation of grace, so that God can draw out from among the world, those He loves and saves.

August 30, 2014 2:27 pm

parsonsmike

John,

History speaks.
The Bible speaks.
Edom was not saved or blessed by God.

ONLY God saves.
God did not save the Edomites.
Thus we know that God did not love them salvifically.

Now they represent those who God does not save even today and who physically die still in their sins. God did not save those and thus did not love them salvifically. [Hereafter just ~God did not love them~.]

But we do not know whom God will save today or tomorrow.
But this we know, whom God saves He loves.

None of us deserve salvation.
None of us do anything to earn salvation.
Even our acceptance of jesus is by the grace of God, is it not?
Salvation is wholly of the Lord.
We are in Christ Jesus because of God.

Dale, or maybe at 10:16 am CDT some of us were in worship? And just now finishing lunch? And why did your Ducks run up that score anyway? 🙂

Dean, Romans 9:6-13. But I sense maybe you’re asking is the specific words, “Esau I have hated from the womb.” Is that what you’re asking?

Blessings this Lord’s day!

August 31, 2014 2:13 pm

Dean Stewart

Les, I am not looking for any specific words. I often hear my Calvinist brothers conflate Romans 6:12 and 13 as if these quoted prophecies took place at the same time and are one. I can’t find this in Scripture. Romans 6:12 is quoting Genesis 25:23 which took place in 2000 BC. Romans 6:13 is quoting Malachi 1:2, 3 which took place in 400 BC. The prophecy in Genesis was while the twins were in the womb and it does not say God loved Jacob and hated Esau. It says one will serve the other and both will be nations. The prophecy in Malachi is made looking back on 1600 years of Edomite wickedness.

I am teaching through Romans on Sunday nights. I want to know if I would be accurate to teach Romans 9 does not teach God hated Esau from the womb? Please share my error in handling the Word.

You know I will teach Romans 9 as corporate election and I know you will teach it from individual election. If we can please leave that discussion for now and focus on my question, does the Bible teach God hated Esau from the beginning? By the way, please refrain from making cricket sounds toward me when you offer a tremendous rebuttle and show me the error of my ways but I am going to be tied up doing holiday family stuff and may not be able to respond.

Hey Dean. It’s a good question and I don’t think the answer necessarily jumps out at us. And you’re right, I teach Romans 9 from an individual election perspective. There are some good and godly men on both sides of that interpretation…corporate or individual.
Here is what I might say, as I see Paul employing the relevant OT passages under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to make his case for individual, unconditional election. i.e. I think the Spirit leads him to employ the passages of events separated by many years, to make his case.

Romans 9: 6-13

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-
12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Notice that in vv. 6-8 Paul is again establishing that a true Jew is not one if physical lineage. v. 8 specifically says that it matters not if you are a physical Jew as to being a child of God. Rather, what matters is being children of the promise. These are counted as offspring.

Of course not everyone every born or ever will be are children of the promise, right? God’s promise is to the elect, not to each person who ever lived.

Then, he brings in Jacob and Esau to prove his point, and to make the point that election is not based on anything in the person or in anything he/she has done right or wrong. These two are a great example, esp. going back into the womb for the example. Neither could have been considered meritorious. Their election or not happened prior to the womb and v. 12 tells us that Rebekah was told while they were in the womb the older would serve the younger. This was an already established fact. v. 13 brings God’s salvivic love into clear focus.

Let me share a couple differing view points as I see Romans 9-11 detailing how God is going to solve the issue the Gospel creates with the nation of Israel. So many of the promises to Israel surround the Messiah. Paul knows the Messiah has come and Israel for the most part has rejected Him. They were still worshiping in the temple and offering sacrifices in the face of the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Christianity and Judaism would not both flourish in Palestine in the first and second centuries. Judaism was going to dwindle. These three chapters offer an answer to “what about the Jews and God’s promises to them.” I see the election spoken of here as corporate.

First, in verses 6-8 Paul is speaking of Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is not a true Jew because while being a descendant of Abraham he is not a descendant of the promise. Verse 8, in my interpretation, means that Ishmael while being a child of the flesh (of Abraham) he was not a child of the promise (through Sarah).
God in His sovereignty and wisdom chose Isaac and not Ishmael.

Paul continues by sharing that in this sovereignty and wisdom God chose Jacob and not Esau though both were descendants of Isaac and indeed the promise. This choice according verse 11 was based on wisdom and sovereignty and was not meritorious. We will agree looking at the Arabs and the Edomites that God’s wisdom in making these choices was perfect.

I would offer this push back on your interpretation, if these verses are speaking of salvific election of individuals then one will have a very hard time not embracing legitimate double predestination – Esau I have hated and that hatred was not meritorious.

Dean, thanks brother for the well wishes. I pray God’s blessing on your holiday as well.

I see where you are coming from brother. But we just have a different approach to the passage. My comments to Chris Johnson a few minutes ago speak to my views and I won’t take up more digital space here repeating myself. Feel free to interact there. I suppose in heaven we’ll rejoice together when we learn the true interpretation and if you turn out to be right, I believe I’l be able to rejoice with you and have not one bit of sorrow. Not allowed in the presence of Jesus, amen?

One thing I’d like to comment on here is this:

“I would offer this push back on your interpretation, if these verses are speaking of salvific election of individuals then one will have a very hard time not embracing legitimate double predestination – Esau I have hated and that hatred was not meritorious.”

I do in fact embrace double predestination. But there are misunderstandings of DP and it is often seen as one making God the author of sin. Here from Theopedia is what I agree with:

The term double predestination has been used to refer to the dual concepts of election and reprobation in Reformed theology. This is largely a pejorative term which leads to misconceptions of the Calvinist (or Reformed) doctrine. It has been used as a synonym for a “symmetrical” view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

The distortion of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which may be called a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation; and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly moves man to do. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as Hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin.

Have a great day my brother.

September 1, 2014 12:50 pm

Dean Stewart

Les, thanks again for the response. I have Labor Day family duties calling but I did want to make one last comment. To me, it would not be fair to say that the Calvinist I interact with attribute sin to God in their belief system. Some may view the Calvinist system as teaching that but I know my Calvinist friends do not believe that.

My problem with double predestination is not that it attributes sin to God but that God doesn’t want everyone to be saved. The Calvinist have a problem with the non-Calvinists’ view of a weak God who can’t save who He wants and non-Calvinists have a problem with the Calvinists’ view of God who doesn’t want to save everyone.

Thank you for the way you’ve interacted. You’ve been more than fair in representing you views and the Reformed views. At the end of the day I believe you and I could lock arms and hit the streets sharing the gospel together.

But, then you went and got nasty. That ROLL TIDE was totally uncalled for! Here we were having such a grew time interacting, and then that.

Kidding aside, I’m a born and bred Auburn guy. Graduated there many moon ago. So War Eagle!

I always have my Auburn hat on when in Haiti. Just trying to convert them from Brazil football. But still, I’m fair. CB said here or in an email, can’t remember, that I would never wear a Bama hat there. Well, my Haiti Facebook pages pics says otherwise. And, just yesterday, check out my personal FB page. https://www.facebook.com/LesProuty/posts/302496053256790

Blessings brother.

September 1, 2014 1:52 pm

Dean Stewart

Les, I have read your bio and work with Haiti Orphans a few times over the years. Not to let my right hand know… but my oldest teenage son adopted an orphan to sponsor for at least a year a couple months ago. His interest plus reading you through the years prompted me to give a very small gift to your ministry.

I read of your love for Auburn. I thought you might have missed my comment Saturday in our interaction – it was something such as – a tiger may whip a hog but is not match for an elephant.

Dean, I agree with you that the “hate from the womb” issue may be a sideline conversation.

“so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Choice of what “would stand” is the question, and whose choice it is. The two references (Genesis/Malachi) that Paul reaches back to bring forward in the minds the Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church, reflect back on his previous thought. God’s Word, his plan, his choice,…will not fail. Conflating Genesis and Malachi, or the thought of “elective” hate in those passages is not what Paul is proposing to the church in Rome.

Paul’s emphasis is on this statement….”That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” The children of the promise include Jews and Gentiles. The examples he uses from the prophets are not used to collectively denote Jews as a people at this point in his opus, but to show that the flesh, whether Jewish or other, is of no effect in the promise of God. In other words, Paul is not emphasizing that the Jews will collectively come back to Christ in his message at this point in his teaching, yet later it is clear that he informs the church in Rome that the Jewish nation will be made jealous and see the messiah just as the Gentiles have been made partakers and are coming to him now.

Nor is Paul positioning “ a remnant” of the Jewish nation as the 144,000 in the section foisted upon John in his Revelation. That is to force unnecessary commentary that has been bookended as Chapter 9-11 where it is clearly known by Paul’s commendations, a continuation into what is known as Chapter 12, reaching back specifically to his earlier thoughts in the previous adjacent passages, ….even back to the the introduction.

Paul’s purpose in using or referring to “Jacob and Esau” is to illustrate God’s promise as specific and reliable to the elect, regardless of fleshly descent. The fact that the Gentiles are coming in now,..and the Jews (leading us to Jesus Christ and the holder of the promises, etc) will follow later, is not the main point. The point is God’s faithful promise to His bride, regardless of time or flesh.

August 31, 2014 4:13 pm

volfan007

Not all of Jacob’s descendants were saved. In fact, a lot of them were not, and are still not.

Some of Esau’s descendants were saved. In fact, God blessed Edom.

The hating of Esau and loving of Jacob was all about God choosing to use Jacob over Esau. It has nothing to do with God choosing to save Jacob, and to hate Esau and sending him to Hell, before they were even born.

It’s like the time that Jesus said, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple;” in Luke 14. Jesus was not telling us to HATE our father and mother. But rather, that our love for Jesus should be so much more than for our father and mother, that our love for them would look like hate….in comparison.

I think you are right on target relative to the Malachi passage IMHO. The rendering of the text follows that type of thought. To carry it further, to something beyond that, is to impose more than what is necessary at that point in the passage. It is also indicative of how Paul uses the fact of Malachi’s prophecy to create a sure foundation for the context of his teaching to those in Rome.

August 31, 2014 4:27 pm

Don Johnson

Dean,

No, there are not any verses that state God hated Esau in the womb. If Scripture is to be believed (and it is), it would appear Esau as did Jacob became a believer later in life. However, Esau like Isaac, Lot, Ishmael, Eli, David, Solomon and others were not the best of fathers. Hence their children went astray. In this case the Edomites.

The idea that God loves some and hates others is not foreign to the bible.

Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
Prov. 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”

August 31, 2014 4:32 pm

volfan007

Les,

Notice that in all the verses you quoted above, God hated them, because they were living wicked, sinful lives. He didn’t hate them before they were born. He hated them for a reason.

First, great win for your Volunteers. The SEC and college football will be better off when the Vols return to their competitive ways.

Now, yep you are right that the verses indicate that they were hated due to their wickedness, wicked ways. My point was to establish that God does indeed hate.

But to the main point about Esau, I think that what we see in the use of “hate” there is not so much an emotional statement about how God feels about Jacob and Esau, but whether God chooses to bestow his favor on one, both or neither. So I think in Romans 9 we see God saying that he has bestowed his elective favor on Jacob but not Esau. And we all agree that in reality as in scripture, God does indeed favor some over others in many ways.

That’s the point of the passage re individual election….God does what he wants to do as Paul so well says later when anyone would object. The potter has full rights.

This is the important part….”So I think in Romans 9 we see God saying that he has bestowed his elective favor on Jacob but not Esau.”

Could it not also be, that Paul is using or referencing Malachi, in his teaching of election, …and that Malachi is more specifically at that point speaking to the faithfulness of God, His love, etc. Why would you need to insist that the prophet Malachi and God’s work with the nations is in the same context of “individual election”… that is obvious in Romans? The Apostle Paul seems to be explaining things specifically to individuals within a separate context.

It seems pretty obvious that the context of the text in Malachi is concerning the nation of Israel (“even over the borders of Israel), and the context of Paul’s letter to the Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church is individual concerning the doctrine that Paul is teaching (regardless of any nation).

These two unique contexts can be held in tact, without imposing one on the other. It appears to me that Paul is bringing forward how God is faithful to his promise, love, etc. by referencing Malachi. His intent in the letter to the Romans is in another context to the individual.

In other words, Paul can use the message of God’s faithfulness that Malachi had given, and apply the concept to an individual election of both Jew and Gentile without having to push back the individual context into Malachi.

Thanks Chris. I thought that might be what you were getting at. Just wasn’t sure.

Yes, I agree that the OT context is national and the NT context is individual. But I don’t see any problem Paul bring in the individuals of Jacob and Esau from that OT nation context. Malachi brings the individuals into the picture himself, ““Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated.”

I think there he is using the actual brothers to make his point of his covenant love and his prerogative to make his sovereign choice.

So it is not surprising that Paul does the same thing in Romans 9. The difference in Romans is that Paul is making his point about God’s sovereignty in electing individuals, not nations. Paul expresses his love for his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” the Jews. But he goes on to remind us again that fleshly lineage is of no account. And he shifts to God’s covenant people made up of individual Jews and gentiles. Spurgeon had this to say about v. 13:

The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, “Esau have I hated.” Others, in order to get rid of this ugly text, say, it does not mean Esau and Jacob; it means the nation; it means Jacob’s children and Esau’s children; it means the children of Israel and Edom. I should like to know where the difference lies. Is the difficulty removed by extending it? Some of the Wesleyan brethren say, that there is a national election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn round and tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another. Now, we ask them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people? and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if—which we do not for a moment believe—that if there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his choosing one nation and not another. No! the difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word. Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations, it says, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger,”—referring to the children, not to the nations. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. “Jacob,”—that is the man whose name was Jacob—” Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

I don’t think we are far apart here as well. I would probably continue to argue that the context of Malachi is teaching a faithfulness to Israel as a nation that will bring forth the messiah, even as the specific individuals are representative of such.

Paul’s teaching to those at Rome is quite different in context…. and I would also expand the favored Chapters 9-11 into an individual context (which is erroneously parsed out as a national emphasis) where Paul never leaves the context of the individual. The unfortunate grouping of Chapters 9-11 by many teachers as an independent section tends to miss the context and important points of instruction throughout the entire book.

My main point is that God’s elective choice is not harmed in either passage, but reinforced by each.

How about the idea that even the statement of such outré sayings as Esau have I hated are but invitations to trust the mercy of God? After all, a dog is an image of reprobation (it eats its own vomit), and is an unclean animal, and yet, when our Lord said to the woman of Canaan, “It is note meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs,”(Mt.15:21-28), she responded that it was true but pointed out that even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their little masters’ table which led to ther receiving one of the highest commendations our Lord ever gave, “great is your faith.” And then there is the unconditional prophecy of gloom and doom to the city of Nineveh, “Forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” And yet it did not happen that way even thought prophet wanted it and got mad at God when it did not.” Jesus spoke so the woman of Canaan could hear Him, when He said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and she worshipped him. He also used the same approach to his fellow citizens in Nazareth, telling how Elijah was sent to help a woman of Tyre and Sidon and not a widow in Israel and Elisha healed the Leper of Syria but did not heal a single leper of Israel. Instead of responding like the woman of Canaan did, the folk of Nazareth tried to murder Jesus or, in other words, they acted like a pack of dogs bent on tearing Him to pieces. Esau was so well treated by the time he perish and still did not respond as one should for such treatment, it would seem that God was vindicated in having hated him from the womb. What is really difficult to explain is what God should have chosen to love Jacob, one of the sorriest fellows it has been my lot to study…and yet I would rather be in his shoes.

This matter of hating from the womb is understandable, if we remember the nature with which life begins. It is sort of like the fellow out on the Gasconade River in Missouri that I heard about during my first pastorate. He was looking for some fishing worms, and he found some while digging around. He started picking them up and putting them in a can. Then he said to his wife, “Don’t handle those worms. There is something wrong with them. they bite.” or something to that effect. He was a city slicker out in the country, and those fishing worms, actually little copperheads, put him in the hospital. Jesus called the folks of His day, “generation of vipers.” You all know that vipers are poisonous serpents. We are all born with that nature, one that God must hate due to the evil in us from the get go. For Him to love us, He must deliberately choose to do so. God shows mercies to multitudes, and there response to His mercies, His common graces (rain, etc.) is no better than Esau’s who profaned God (Hebs.12). John Gill said God treats the wicked so well that no one in his right mind would condemn God for sending them to Hell. What will utterly amazes us is the number He chooses to love and take to Heaven, and the greatest amazement for us will be to find ourselves in the midst of that number, a barely decipherable speck (and that might be ascribing too much size). O well, if predestination is invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage, and a message of unconditional condemnation leads to the salvation of a whole city, lock, stock and barrel, then surely God can use such outré statements as, “Esau have I hated,” even from the womb as an invitation to sinners to be saved. Like I said, the really hard part is His loving Esau.

I’m a little wee bit disappointed that nobody interacted with my having pointed out that Job was an Edomite. It seems relevant to me that God expressed such superlative approval of an Edomite. That fact, it seems to me, would have some relevance in our discussion of this issue.

If we view God’s rejection of Edom/Esau as being absolute, complete, and total, then His “superlative approval” would seem to be inconsistent. I like that phrasing, by the way: superlative approval. However, if we view God’s rejection as painting with a broad brush and not to be complete down to the level of the individual, then His acceptance of Job is perfectly consistent.

Moab was similarly rejected by God for their bad acts, and yet Ruth, ancestor of David and Jesus, was a Moabite who made the jump. Therefore, it would seem that in this sort of situation, God’s rejection is corporate, not individual.

September 3, 2014 1:19 am

parsonsmike

Bart and Ethan,

What we should do is read the OT with NT understanding. For example, Jesus did not add to thee Law of God but simply opened our eyes to see it better.
As in the case of Israel/Jacob and Esau, we need to look at the OT with NT eyes. Even as Paul tells us that not all Israel is Israel though they all descended from Isaac and Abraham, we should also know that not all Edom is Edom.
We read:
~~~But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.~~~

The children of promise are not limited to fleshly descendants. The children of promise are true Israel. These are represented by Jacob. Likewise the ones that remain under the curse are not all descendants of Esau.

From John 8 we read:

Jesus answered them,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”

They answered and said to Him,
“Abraham is our father.”

Jesus *said to them,
“If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.”

They said to Him,
“We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.”

Jesus said to them,
“If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Simply being physical descendants of Abraham [and Jacob] does not make one have Abraham as their true father, or God as their Father.
Likewise, simply being a physical descendant of Esau does not mean you die under the curse.

These two [Jacob and Esau] are types. The represent the nation/people of God [Jacob], the children of promise, and those that die under the curse [Esau and the Edomites].

So back in Romans 9 we read:
~~~Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.~~~

Jacob represents the children of promise.
Esau represents those who die under the curse.

Both Jacob and Esau were sinners, who both deserved to die under the curse. [Just like you and me].
But Jacob [true Israel -the children of promise] is rescued from the dominion of Satan and translated into the kingdom of the dear Son.
Jacob I loved!

But Esau [the people who die physically in their sins] is not rescued, and they suffer eternal hell.
Esau I hated.

Our duty is to proclaim the Gospel to the world so that by that means and by the Holy Spirit and power, God may deliver out of darkness every child of promise.

September 3, 2014 3:35 am

doug sayers

Chris G, sorry so slow to respond to your question: Please, explain the difference between “born in sin” and “born dead in sin.”

I think it is an important distinction in scripture that is actually a good and necessary inference. (Much better than the poor and unecessary inference that everyone is born guilty and deserves the lake of fire from the womb!)

We are born in sin, in that we are each born into a fallen world with a corrupt nature, which is radically bent towards sin and selfishness. Nothing good dwells in our flesh and we will die physically. Adam would bear the guilt for the inevitable sins we commit as small children and/or they are covered by the blood of Christ shed universally for the whole world. Like the man born blind, we are born this way so that the works of God might be manifest in us. (John 9).

We each remain in this state of grace until, at some point (which would be unique to every individual based on what each has been given in terms of divine grace), God justly imputes the guilt of our own willfull sin to our own account… No excuses. When this happens we (like Adam in the Garden and Paul in Rom 7:9) die. We become dead in trespasses and sins.

When we come to saving faith in the Truth we are quickened/washed by regeneration. Our guilt is permanently imputed to Christ and we are forgiven (see col 2:13)

Give it some thought. It is far better than trying to reconcile the (biblical) universal call of the gospel with the Calvinistic teaching of irresistible damnation for those who would be born reprobate.

Doug Sayers,…. your comments seem a little left of the topic, but interesting none the less.

We are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners.

One theologian has stated it this way…..

“So we have seen two things that need a remedy. One is our sinful nature that enslaves us to sin, and the other is our original guilt and condemnation that is rooted not first in our individual sinning but in our connection with Adam in his sin. The book of Romans—indeed the whole Bible— is the story of how God has worked in history to remedy these two problems. The problem of our condemnation in Adam God remedies through justification in Christ. The problem of our corruption and depravity he remedies through sanctification by the Spirit. Or to put it another way: The problem of our legal guilt and condemnation before God is solved by his reckoning to us the righteousness Christ; and the problem of our moral defilement and habitual sinning is solved by his purifying us by the work of Spirit. The first remedy, justification, comes by imputed righteousness. The other, sanctification, comes by imparted righteousness. Justification is instantaneous; sanctification is progressive”

I hear what you are trying to argue, yet it seems this “non-imputation” of “non-willful sinning”…whatever that is, is a difficult thing to find in scripture.

Psalm 51, Ephesians 2 extinguish the idea that we somehow have a work of imputed sin at some point after we are born into the world. Maybe I’m not following your argument.

One quick note to the “non-imputation”, “non-willful sinning” theory,…is that Jacobus Arminius was very comprehensive in his writings to argue against such. He does attribute someone else as bringing this argument forward, since damning babies is not a subject anyone likes to discuss because it sounds monstrous. But, he never agrees with that stance as he discusses original sin and its effects. Arminius was a smart guy.

How unjust is it to allow a “non-willful” sinner into the Kingdom. I think all, at whatever age, need to be justified. My understanding of scripture is that “only” those that are justified by Christ will enter into the Kingdom. Other religions have debated the baby quandary, and Islam finds babies to be innocent as well, somehow justified for a time, for simply being born.

September 3, 2014 12:30 pm

parsonsmike

As a 5 point C, I agree with Doug Sayers here. Nothing inherent in the 5 points restricts one from believing in an age of accountability.

Where many C’s (and others) go wrong is in holding to what is called the Federal Theory. This theory jerks part of Romans 5 from its context and then uses it to trump the many Scriptures that speak against that theory.

God condemns a person for their OWN sin only. We are not born guilty or born sinners but we are born with a nature that does willfully sin the first time we are morally accountable before God.

September 3, 2014 2:51 pm

parsonsmike

As far as damning babies, I believe Calvinists like Spurgeon, Mohler, Piper, as well as a host of others believe that those who die without willful sin are covered by the blood of Jesus. This would include those millions of children we in America have killed by aborting them.

God’s Word tells us plainly that the soul that sins shall die. And that the wages of sin is death. Wages are what one earns by their own deeds. Physical death is not a punishment for sin but a consequence. We know this hecause Jesus took all of punishment due the children of God, and yet they still die physically.

Parsonmike, I understand the emotional plea for that type of theory. And, I am not trying to say that God has not justified all those children that you speak of. Yet, Romans 5, and many other places as you know, makes it abundantly clear that we are not only in decaying bodies that will ultimately parish… as we are born; but we are sinners, as the Psalmist was say….from the womb. This limbo period of not being a sinner was used by the Catholics, in fact, is still used by the Catholics to endear them to getting baptized ASAP, and paying dues the rest of their lives.

What biblical proof do we have that we are conceived without being a sinner? Is there any? If so, we can just get scientific enough to never go beyond a certain age, or thought process… thus, saving the world from sin.

September 3, 2014 3:21 pm

parsonsmike

Chris,
Lets separate truth from error.
First of all the Scripture OVERWHELMINGLY tells us that we are condemned for our own sin.
It also tells us that sin is there because of law.

Now as far as Romans 5 saying what you think it says, it does not. When you read a passage like Romans 5 with preconceived notions, it is quite possible to ‘read into’ it what it is yu ant to get out of it.

~~~But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds…~~~

Not someone else’s deeds.

~~~For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. ~~~

How can this be true if we are born condemned, sinners already? This passage stands against the idea that we are sinners at birth.

In chapter 3 we read:

~~~Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.~~~

So at what age would you say that a unborn child, or a new born child, r a young boy or girl gains the knowledge of sin through the Law?
For in chapter 5, we read:

~~~Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ~~~

If someone has an undeveloped mind and understanding of spiritual things and of moral truths, which is what we would expect in an unborn or newborn or young child, how are they under the Law of God? What glory is there for God in holding children accountable for sins and moral failings for which they are not yet cognizant of their eternal danger or of the God to whom they owe allegiance?

Romans 5 is followed by chapters 6 and 7. In 6 we read:

~~~Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?~~~

Now if a person becomes a slave to sin resulting in death by presenting themselves and obeying sin, how is it they are already born sinners? Rather, there is a point in their life when they do present themselves to and obey sin and become condemned.

Paul points this out in chapter 7:

~~~What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.~~~

Paul said that he once was alive apart from the Law. But that when the commandment came, sin took that opportunity to slay him. A few verses earlier, he gives a further explanation:
~~~For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.~~~
We are born with a sin nature, and when we finally reach the age where moral truth is real to us, which is the Law, “the commandment” that “came”, it [the law which is for life] arouses within us the sinful passions [our sin nature] and thus the commandmentproves to result in death because we willfully and consciously do what we now know is wrong and immoral.

The proof we have that we are not born sinners is all through the Bible because it tells us that we are sinners because of our evil deeds. No where does it say that we are born sinners.

Parsonmike, I’ll jump back down off my box after this one 🙂 I’m not very tall, so its a short box…. but, there is not enough time to delve into the principle that God has laid out of this (baby thing) in scripture, but it does tie nicely in with Malachi. God is the one that justifies…wholesale…all of Him through Christ alone, etc. We get on pretty shaky ground when we start calling sin by new names, or choose who we want to be sinners…assuming the condition of the heart.

I believe that infants, yet sinners, and fully accountable for their sin….are justified by God and will be in heaven, ….based in the justice of God and tenor of the scriptures. That can take a while to try and unwrap, without depending upon the simple blanket “age of accountability”, which brings along with it too much baggage.

September 3, 2014 3:39 pm

parsonsmike

Well now that you are back on solid ground (-:
No one is calling sin by new names, or choosing who we want to be sinners. I am defining sinners biblically.
More tomorrow, I have to go to work now.

Les, yes.. as conceived, newly born, or 969 years old, justification is the same,…. all are justified by Christ and for the same reason as anyone else, because we are all are sinners; Parsonmike…All need to be justified by a Savior… That is what Paul communicated to those in Rome, and sums it up in this way…….

“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”

Death reigned “even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.” There are those who died without seeing a law and choosing to sin against it.

Paul makes it extremely clear that it is because of one sin that death and condemnation belong to us all. We can know we are connected to Adam in a way that his one sin is regarded as our sin and we are worthy of condemnation, and need a perfect righteousness to cover that sin.

This limbo business of discovering when we are responsible for the sin of Adam has confused the church over a long period of time. Our God is a just God, and I can trust His judgements to justify by His grace….whether babies or grown ups. Again, the tenor of scripture concerning infants certainly brings me to a confident conclusion that God has them in heaven.

Thus,.. Malachi makes a lot of sense, pointing both Esau and Jacob to a faithful messiah!!

Amen again Chris J. And…one thing I’ve never understood by those who deny the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt is this: they readily admit that infants (and any who are under the “nowhere to be found in scriptures” idea of an age of accountability) suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, right? Isn’t that what they say? So how is that supposed to make God more just? Babies suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, even though in their view they’ve done nothing wrong and are innocent? That’s supposed to soften it and be more just than us saying that babies are guilty by imputation? At lease our view is equitable. Penalty follows on to the guilty. In the non imputation view, penalty follows on the innocent.

Les, and not only that type of confusion you mention will exist, but it is diametrically opposed to what the Apostle Paul summed up. Even though you and I may have a little scrap over how specific Malachi is over and against the more specific context of Paul, this bit about when actual sin arrives is pretty clear. And the Apostle was trying to get that same message over those in Rome, who may have been looking for another method as well.

Chris J., I say amen, amen, amen and amen to your comments on the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all mankind. Funny that there was a time in our schools when this glorious doctrine was taught. The New England Primer (1777 ed.) taught the alphabet using little sayings. For A:

Parsonmike, do you remember the first time you became morally accountable before God? just curious.

September 3, 2014 3:00 pm

parsonsmike

Nope.
Strange thing about sin. It blinds the mind spiritually. It hardens the heart. It makes one ignorant of the things of God. So no, I can not remember when I first became morally accountable before God. But according to the Scriptures, I exchanged the truth for a lie. So its no wonder I do not remember.

Sin is bad thing to do. An evil thing to do.
But many were taught that in Adam we all sinned.
It was and is taught as part of the Federal Headship Theory.

But since we are speaking of Malachi and Romans 9, we know the Scripture tells us that while in the womb, before they had done anything good or bad, God chose the older to serve the younger.
Yet you were that they had sinned.

Sometimes we have to quibble over words. For the record, I never said that we weren’t born sinners. By Adam’ sin we we’re all made sinners. (Rom 5, etc) My contention is that God does not impute the *guilt* of our sins as small children to our account. Much the same way that believers still commit acts of sin (and thus, can be called sinners) but the guilt of that sin is not imputed to them. It is covered by the blood. I don’t think of it so much as an age of accountability as a sin of accountability. The age could vary greatly. Jesus said that the man born blind was not born that way because of his sin. (John 9) We can be glad He explained the obvious.

It is biblically and rationally impossible for Esau to be guilty of breaking a law that was only given to Adam… before Esau existed. Note: The word for impute is not used in Rom 5. If Jacob and Esau had been born guilty then Paul could not claim that they had not done any evil. (Rom 9). Thus, we see how another foundational principle of Calvinism is built on a dubious inference.

(I will mail a $100 gift certificate to the first person who can find a biblical text that explicitly teaches that the *guilt* of Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity. I’d offer the same for anyone who can produce a text that plainly teaches Jesus did not die for someone or some group of people. Maybe I should offer the same for anyone who can produce a Bible text which explicitly teaches that we cannot repent until we have experienced the “washing of regeneration”.)

Rom 7:9 “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”

Note: Paul said that he was alive once *without/apart from the law* and then that the commandment *came*. This teaches that Paul was indeed without law… at some time in his life. The only time this “pharisee” and “son of a pharisee” would have been apart from the law would have been in his childhood.

Note also, Paul did not say “I *thought* I was alive” (as Reformed commentators tend to teach.) This interpretation is forced and makes no sense in the context. He was alive – spiritually and physically. The commandment came, his sin was revived and he became dead in sin.

Indeed, the imputation of Adam’s guilt is all over the Reformed creeds but it is not found in the Bible. This is a crucial distinction that avoids charging God with the injustice of imputing sin via natural generation or by arbitrary decree.

Adam opened the door that leads to hell but he did not push anyone in!

Doug, you kinda left off the punch line that the Apostle is driving to here as you were trying to describe Romans 7:9……

12 “Therefore did that which is good become death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”

You see… Paul had already told us just a few paragraphs earlier that Adam as the Head represents us.. and that the Law created an increase from that of Adam, who was not under Law. The Apostle is arguing that the Law is not sin, but is holy. Yet, sin (nasty as it is) was already there, is intensified, revived, made more clear, by the Law. In other words, sin just became utterly sinful in need of a justifier…Jesus Christ.

I’m hard pressed to see the Apostle dismiss anyone from being a sinner based upon extenuating circumstances at this point, …it appears that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only justification. In fact, he argues we are all in sin.

From a practical point of view…. if you have a small child between 1-2 years, and they say “no” to their mom or dad out of disobedience, Is that sin? Where does that come from (something outside of their will)? Does being innocent (unwillfully) dismiss them from telling their parents “no”. When does disobedience to parents become accountable? When did the heart become corrupt enough to say “no”. Muslims always argue this with me….since they believe in being born innocent, and they know that Allah calls the shots later at the “age of accountability.”

September 4, 2014 12:03 am

parsonsmike

Chris,
you said,
~~~You see… Paul had already told us just a few paragraphs earlier that Adam as the Head represents us..~~~

Well actually, that is just made up. No where in Romans [or anywhere else in the Bible] are we told that Adam is the Head that represents us.

Then you said,
~~~and that the Law created an increase from that of Adam, who was not under Law.~~~

That is not quite correct either. Adam was certainly under Law or he could not have sinned. He was under law, just not the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was a written code for the Israelis to show them how exacting and how high was the standard of God. The Law specifically that Adam was under is recorded there in Genesis, as in do not eat of this tree.

You continued,
~~~The Apostle is arguing that the Law is not sin, but is holy. Yet, sin (nasty as it is) was already there, is intensified, revived, made more clear, by the Law. In other words, sin just became utterly sinful in need of a justifier…Jesus Christ.~~~

No one is saying the Law is sin. Sin is a violation of the law, it is not there or here but happens when moral agents choose wrong and selfish and evil acts. In Romans 7, Paul is speaking of the sin nature, which in itself is not sin, except as it acts against God’s Law. But sin was utterly sinful and always in need of the Savior. What the written code does is point out to us [if we would but listen] how we fall so incredibly short of God’s high standard.

you…
~~~I’m hard pressed to see the Apostle dismiss anyone from being a sinner based upon extenuating circumstances at this point, …it appears that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only justification. In fact, he argues we are all in sin.~~~

Certainly the righteousness of Jesus is the only justification for sinners. So then what is sin? And does it apply to the unborn, the newborn, and the young? We need a Savior because we have earned death by our sin, or as Paul puts it:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now wages are not inherited things. If you want to argue that the unborn, the newborn, and the young children sin and thus deserve death due to their own deeds, that is one thing. But it runs counter to the argument that all have sinned in Adam and are born already dead.

So which is it? Are we born dead because of Adam, or do children earn death by their sins?

You finish with:
~~~From a practical point of view…. if you have a small child between 1-2 years, and they say “no” to their mom or dad out of disobedience, Is that sin? Where does that come from (something outside of their will)? Does being innocent (unwillfully) dismiss them from telling their parents “no”. When does disobedience to parents become accountable? When did the heart become corrupt enough to say “no”. Muslims always argue this with me….since they believe in being born innocent, and they know that Allah calls the shots later at the “age of accountability.”
~~~

Muslims also argue that is one God creator of all. You of course do not mind agreeing with them that there is one God creator of all. So lets leave them out of this conversation.

If, as I do, we define sin as an actual action by a moral agent against the Law of God and not as a condition of the heart, then what we call the condition of the heart, rebellious against God, is a sin nature. A sin nature is not sin. It leads to sin because from it accountable moral agents disregard God and His Law and do as they please.

So in any young child, we see that they do indeed have a sin nature. The question is are they accountable before God for telling their parents “no”?

Again, if you go down this road, you must either give up the idea that we all sinned in Adam and are born dead or give up the idea that the child’s sin earns him or her death. Its an either or. You certainly could say that they are born dead in Adam and continue to sin, but not that their own sins earn them damnation. They are born damned. And as you say the only justification for that is Jesus.

So in Romans 7, young Paul has a sin nature, but when the Law comes to Him, which means when he becomes cognizant of moral truth as moral truth, his sin nature siezes that opportunity to slay him. So though the commandment and the Law are good, they because he has a sin nature, cause death in him. Now when I say cause, I am not saying that Paul is not accountable, simply that the Word tells us that the Law “proved to result in death.”

What this understands is that the unborn and the newborn, and the young child do not have a morally developed understanding yet. Their thinking and thought processes are still forming. And that God does not put those with undeveloped moral cognizance under His Law. In there words, they cannot yet earn death. Neither can they do deeds of righteousness. They are amoral. But when their minds develop to the point where they are morally cognizant, they are morally accountable. And then they sin willfully and consciously by doing what they know is wrong in their own heart.

We read from Romans 2:

~~~For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them… ~~~

Until a young person can recognize the work of the Law written on their heart, their conscience cannot bear witness to their self, nor can their thoughts alternatively accuse or defend their choices.

Thus we read in chapter 3:
~~~Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.~~~

Now as we look at this passage and compare it to the Romans 7 passage, even as we hold Romans 2 in our heads, we see a few things. Paul said he was alive until the commandment came. From that we can gather that the commandment is not always there, it must come to a person. And if the Law is not there, then there is no knowledge of sin: the conscious does not condemn the child for its selfish choices. And if the Law is not there the child is not yet under the Law and is not yet accountable to God.

But when the commandment comes, it arouses the sinful passions [the sin nature] and the person sins and becomes accountable to God [under the Law now], and as well, their conscience condemns them.

Now let me take it another step:
Do the aborted unborn need Jesus? [And this would include every child who dies before they become accountable unto God.]

Romans 2:
~~~But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.~~~

“but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
If you are not a moral agent yet, you can not do good or evil. If you do not do good, you are not righteous. You are like in limbo. An unborn child aborted has no positive righteousness: they need Jesus. AS do all who die in an amoral state.

Finally, as to Esau and Jacob.
They were unborn, and had not done good or evil. But they would live and sin. And sinners need a savior. The point of Romans 9 is to tell us that God chooses whom He will save. Jacob represents the children of promise, the true nation of Israel. Esau represents the rest of the world, those who will die in their sins. Before creation God knew exactly who would be in each category, BY NAME. Yet he created knowing that the Esau’s of the world would perish in everlasting hell. Esau He hated. God lets people die in their sins. But He also created knowing exactly who He would save, the Jacob’s of the world. Jacob He loves.

Who are the Esau’s?
Who are the Jacob’s?

WE do not know, but in obedience to our Lord, we are to take the Gospel to the whole world. We are to plead with men and reason with them, and seek to live for the Lord in front of them, and admit we are sinners saved by grace. But who gets saved is the Lord’s doing, not ours and not theirs…

~~~What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.~~~

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

September 4, 2014 4:35 am

parsonsmike

Doug,

Let me point out your inconsistency as you seek to hold on to Federal Headship and promote an age of accountability.
In Romans 7 we read:

~~~For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.~~~

Now you and I agree that Paul was alive before he was slain by sin, but we disagree on whether he was born a sinner. Now the theory goes like this:
Paul was a young un when the law [the commandment] came. Before the commandment came he was alive, but after it came he was slain by sin because he was now under the law. And whereas before, you claim he sinned, he was not under the law, so sin was not imputed to him.
But…
We are also told that sinful passions [the desire to do wrong and selfish acts] are aroused by the law. Yet you say that he did these selfish and sinful acts BEFORE the law came in and sin slayed him. So you have to choose, did he sin before the law and if so why was he not condemned earlier? Or was what he did not sin?

Before you go jumping to conclusions with Doug, I think you two are really in agreement here. Basically, the entire disagreement is around the scope of what Paul is communicating when he said “he became alive”. It appears, from the context of Romans and all other writings of Paul, that he is simply making a specific argument to these folks in Rome about the Law being Holy, and it cannot cause sin. Sin is already present because of our connection to Adam (that is obvious), and he being “alive to sin” even as he understood the Law, opposed to what he was living under earlier, the law (still sin there),….was to prove a point. Sin is sin none the less (regardless of the Law). The Law is Holy. The Apostle did have some Jews questioning his sanity at this point.

The simplicity of this is astounding:

-We are sinners!
-Adam proves we are sinners, and we come out of Adam (we… the human race is in Adam until rescued).
-We need justification, we need to be rescued.
-The Law put the heat on….made the effects of being a sinner really clear. Yet, the Law is not responsible, our sin in and through Adam made us guilty and condemned..in fact we go on sinning (not sure why I do the things I do)
-Christ is our justification…We are Saved by Grace…through a peculiar/distinct Faith, not because of Faith. God’s Grace.
-God is the Chooser, the Father is the Giver, the Son is the Obedient Justifier, We are the receiving Wife. We believe that we have received a Loving Husband, Jesus Christ. And will be with Him forevermore.
-It is certainly apparent from scripture that infants will know their Loving Husband and be with Him forever; because the Father has chosen to give them to the Son who has extinguished the guilt and condemnation of their sin by His Grace, and will be with them forevermore.

-Adam’s sin serves God/Christ’s purpose in coming
-Adam is a “type” of Christ (to come)
-Paul uses this in parallel to illustrate a reality
-Death in Adam or Life in Christ
-Adam and Christ demonstrated as “Head”
-Death reigns through Adam
-Much more, righteousness will reign in the one man Jesus Christ
-One man’s disobedience…made sinners. (counted, imputed, stuck on, got them dirty, whatever term you want to interject that means we are sinners facing wrath unless Christ intervenes with his righteousness)
-One man’s obedience…made righteous ones.
-Even as sins increased from Adam and more so by the Law
-Grace abounded all the more through Jesus Christ our Lord

Romans 5: 12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Address:
Chris Johnson
4451 Chandler Rd.
Hermitage, TN 37076

😉

September 3, 2014 8:44 pm

parsonsmike

Chris,
In the Romans 5 passage you cited, we see a couple of themes. One is of sin and condemnation, the other of righteousness in Jesus.

So let us look at a few key passages Paul has already laid as groundwork BEFORE he gets to Romans 5. In doing this we won’t rip the passage from its context, and can see the flow of the argument.

Of sin and condemnation, we read from Romans 2:
~~~But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.~~~

Nothing here of Adam. But condemnation comes to those who do sin, and who fail to obey the truth. Nothing here about being born dead in sins and already guilty. Rather God is going to judge each person according to their deeds.

And from chapter 3 we read:
~~~Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.~~~

No Adam. We become accountable to God because we are under Law, not because sin was imputed to us. We are accountable because through the Law we have the knowledge of sin. And yet we still sin. before God our mouths are shut. We have no excuse.

Of Jesus and righteousness, we read from chapter3:
~~~But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.~~~

The righteousness of God through FAITH. or should I type it like this: THROUGH faith. Through the work of Jesus and the faith we have in Him, we have righteousness. Is there any other way for sinners to acquire righteousness except by faith in Jesus? No.

Chapter 4:
~~~What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
“Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”~~~

Justification is by faith alone.
WE see this repeated in chapter 5:

~~~Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.~~~

From these passages, and others not brought up, we see two things that Paul is telling us:
[1] Our sins cause us condemnation. Because we sin we are condemned. Paul makes this even more clear at the end of chapter 6: “fir the wages of sin is death.”
[2] Faith in Jesus brings us righteousness and life.

Now keeping these two truths in our minds, let us look at Romans 5:15-19…

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

By verse…
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

The two things we learned from Paul is that sin causes condemnation and faith in Jesus brings life.
How do the many die because of Adam’s transgression?
Because of his sin we are all born with a sin nature so that when we can we sin are earn condemnation.
How does the gift by the grace of Jesus abound to the many?
By faith in Him we are justified.

16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

How does the judgement arise from the one sin resulting in condemnation?
Because we are born with a sin nature that leads us to sin and deserve Hell.
How does the free gift result in justification?
By grace are we saved through faith.

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Why does death reign through Adam’s transgression?
Because through his sin we too sin and earn death. The wages of sin is death.
Why does life reign in those who have received an abundance of grace?
Because through that grace we were brought to faith and justification.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

This verse shows our need for the conditions of sin and faith.
For certainly the sin of Adam results in death for all people [young children not in view here] because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So we should read this verse with the conditions established:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men for all have sinned.

And we read the latter part with the condition of faith:
Even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men who believe.

19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

How were the many made sinners?
Because the many who sinned did so under the Law which when it came aroused their sin nature which they inherited from Adam and his sin.
How will the many be made righteous?
Because through the work of Jesus the many will be brought to faith and justification.

There is nothing in these verse that say Adam is our federal head.
There is nothing in these verses that say his sin is imputed to his posterity.
Or that we are guilty of his sin.

It does say that because of Adam we became sinners.
It doesn’t say we are born sinners.

I appreciate the work you put into the response…. but, if I am hearing you correctly, you are arguing that we (all mankind) are not “guilty” before God because of sin, until “we” actually pull the trigger on sin. It appears that you are arguing that the sin inherited from Adam as “a type” of Christ (to the Corinthians Paul would say we are “in Adam”), as Paul is arguing in Romans, is only “pretend sin” (prevenient sin) until we make it actual sin at some point in our early life? You said we are sinners,… but we aren’t sinners “really” until we pull the trigger? So, in other words, Adam is not really in play here at all as a “type”. He is just there to give us an idea that sin is dormant (but real), not deadly, and just waiting for the law, or Law to trigger it and make it realized as a killer?

Mike, wish I could reply more. I’m in Richmond, IN picking up a car with my son. Richmond is about 70 miles east of Indy.

All you pastors, Christian ministry workers, missionaries etc. should know about the place where I’m buying this car. It’s called MATS. mats.org. This is the 6th I or a family member have bought from MATS. Here is their mission statement:

Ken…certainly not a new debate. Poor old Adam really had no idea how far it would spread, did he.

I like all the info though….. this one line, “A Realistic Alternative Paul’s point is that death came through one man just as life comes through one Man, Christ; and that death came through the one man’s sin, in whom all sinned, just as life comes through the one man’s righteous act (culminating a righteous life), and all who are in Him are made righteous by Him. Death spread to all because when Adam sinned, all sinned. The free gift is for those who believe, whereby they are united to Christ in a way that correlates to our previous union in Adam. When Christ died, we died, and we are justified because of it.”

I do think we “young theologians”, like to make things appear as alternatives and very complicated.

Being blind to the complexities and alternatives is not a mark of maturity in theology. The older theologian—if age has improved him—will not be satisfied to accept commonly held constructs merely because they have been held by favored theologians before him, but will endeavor to thoroughly understand why they held it and where—if at all—they erred.

In the case of Adamic headship, the Church abandoned a wealth of substance in the meaning of mankind’s union in Adam when theologians in the 18th and 19th century moved the union from within the being of Adam himself to merely within the mind of God. Now we have the form of the words “in Adam,” but without the reality that once was intended by those words. Such “alternatives” warrant serious consideration.